User talk:Zulu1963

Welcome!

Hello, Zulu1963, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ERA

Per MOS:ERA, get consensus before you change the date style of an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zulu1963 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Hellenistic Judaism

You've been warned per the result of an edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you change the article dating again to BC/AD unless you have previously got a consensus in its favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I have not edited the page since I saw the previous warning. Whilst I appreciate you have a role to perform this new warning strikes me as an example of excessive policing, particuarly considering a certain number of administrators are allowed to selectively apply wikopedia rules and guidelines when it suits them. I'm sure you've read my discussions with the two admins in question so I won't repeat them here.

Having attempted to start a discussion on the talk page for the city of Split I found my arguments were not engaged with and we're merely turned down without any initial explanation. This is hardly conducive to encouraging a debate and reinforces the notion that pages are the private fiefdoms of certain admins who excercise control over what content stays and what goes, and that no matter how strong an individuals arguments are ultimately decisions on content are taken executively. Zulu1963 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. If you can get the other editors to support your change you won't find administrators standing in your way. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era style - not original style but established style

Although I have reverted the latest change to BCE, our guidelines to not warrant using the original style as the only style. They say "established style". You clearly are continuing with the same agenda you've been warned about in the past. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Joe (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocking due to editing of dating style

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zulu1963 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm of the opinion the indefinite block that has been applied to this user account is both excessive and unwarranted. Whilst the user Joe Roe was correct to point out that the majority of my edits over the past two years have pertained to the altering of dating styles, his decision to indefinitely block the account, without first giving me some right of reply, doesn't appear to have taken into account the fact that I added valid reasons in the description of the respective edits clearly outlining that the BCE/CE style appeared to have been arbitrarily added to these pages, something which I was undoing. The former goes against the guidelines which give preference to the established dating style on a page and also doesn't take into consideration that the addition of BCE/CE style created inconsistencies within the article (Cataphract). I would also like to highlight that my edit relating to the Old-Europe (Archaeology) page undid a transparent attempt at vandalism, in which information was altered under the guise of improving the article. To add to this, "Joe Roe" has stated that I 'did not gain consent' before changing the pages. Unfortunately he doesn't appear to have noticed the fact that the changes I undid were ones which were made without consent and yet appear to have escaped the notice of admins. This is a pattern I have noticed more and more and it appears there is a very thinly veiled preference for the BCE/CE style. By reverting the page back to the BC/AD system I was merely reverting the pages to the original format which had been arbitrarily changed. I accept that around 15 months ago I misinterpreted the guidelines around how dating styles should be used and did change pages which I shouldn't have uner the impression I was following the correct rules. The correct interpretation of the guidelines were kindly explained to me around a year ago when a dispute arose over a particular page and I have not strayed from these guidelines since. I include these most recent edits within that. While generally I think the admins on Wikipedia do a great job in undoing genuine vandalism, this unfortunately does not always seem to extend to when the BCE/CE style is added for no particular reason on a number of historical pages and without obtaining consent. I am not first person to notice this either. I hope I have sufficiently explained why I made these two edits. As you will notice I am not a regular editor and read many pages which include the BCE/CE style and very, very rarely attempt to edit them. I only do so when changes were made without following the correct guidelines. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulu1963 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the block, I agree with the reasoning behind it, and thus I'm declining this for now. The route back to editing is very simple; you'll need to agree to a voluntary topic ban on changing dating formats. If you do that, I can't see any administrator declining a new unblock appeal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The MOS:ERA/MOS:VAR guidelines are there to stop tedious edit wars over an inconsequential stylistic point. Changing an era style that has been established on an article for years is not in line with the spirit of these guidelines. Changing era style without prior consensus is against the letter of them. Using BCE/CE is not vandalism. You have been told all this before and warned that continuing may lead to a block.

I blocked you because for the past two years you have used this account almost exclusively to change BCE/CE to BC/AD, which shows that you are not really here to build an encyclopaedia. If you want to actually contribute to articles and will commit to not changing era styles again, I'd be happy to unblock you. – Joe (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my initial appeal the dating style was changed to BCE/CE without consent, my edit was undoing this. It does seem counter productive that an edit which is correcting a change that was made without consent is itself penalised for not having consent and begs the question why the edit which changed the style in the first place was upheld, despite the fact the editor made no effort to gain consent.

I hope you can see why, from my position, your comments seem somewhat paradoxical.